1. Field of the Invention
This disclosure relates to the field of systems and methods for the electronic tracking of valuable objects and information. Specifically, the disclosure relates to the electronic tagging and tracking of evidence and other information related to police or other investigative work for later use in judicial proceedings.
2. Description of Related Art
In the United States and many other justice systems, judges, juries, and others involved in the judicial system rely on evidence presented at a trial, mediation, arbitration, or other formal proceeding to make a determination as to guilt, innocence, liability, and other legal findings. Because of its importance to such proceedings, there has arisen an entire body of law devoted to nothing except a determination of what may be used as evidence, how it may be presented, and what may be inferred from it.
A good number of evidentiary rules exist to attempt to prevent the presentation of false evidence and to make sure that material shown and used at trial is the actual material that is involved in the underlying action. As the evidence is often the basis for a determination, if the underlying evidence is flawed, inaccurate, or presented inaccurately, a bad determination can be made. As should be clear, it is therefore necessary to make sure that rules are followed with regards to the chain of custody of evidence to make sure that what is presented at trial is ultimately the same as what was originally located.
Nowhere is this clearer than in criminal trials. While in a civil trial evidence is just as important to the trial itself, a civil action often does not involve the same type of investigatory process as a criminal investigation. In a criminal investigation, you will generally have professional investigators working with physical evidence, provide testimony, and forensic evidence, often without even an indication of who the defendant will ultimately be and with the individual who actually committed the crime being uncooperative and trying to cover their tracks.
Because of the nature of criminal investigations, it is very important to know that a piece of evidence located at a crime scene is the same piece of evidence tested by a forensics lab and is ultimately the same piece of evidence presented at trial. In a civil case, lapses in the ownership of physical evidence can often be eliminated by testimony. For example, an individual can be placed on a witness stand and requested to indicate whether or not a certain thing is theirs. In a criminal trial, however, such testimony may not be possible as a defendant is not required to take the stand, and may have an increased interest to lie or deceive. Further, in criminal situations, an increased burden of proof can often require a much more exacting standard. Still further, the same type of evidence may not be as important in a civil case. For example, it may be much more important that a rat was found in an apartment, than the same rat is presented at trial.
In a criminal action, there are often a couple of key pieces of physical evidence. For example, one such key piece of evidence may be the gun used in a shooting. However, the gun may not be immediately connectable to the shooting as the action of the shooting has separated the gun from the bullet which is the more direct connection. Even if the gun is located at the scene, the gun is rarely seen by investigators when the shooting is “occurring.” It is, therefore, necessary to connect a gun to the bullet, and to who pulled the trigger. This can involve not only the specifics of the gun itself, but where the gun was located (was it on the defendant, at the scene etc.), how it is known that it fired the bullet which hit the victim (e.g. from ballistics analysis), and how it is determined that this defendant pulled the trigger (e.g. from fingerprints, powder residues, etc.).
The specifics of these connections often mean that a gun has to pass through numerous hands after it is collected. Further, in some situations, there may be multiple guns located and it is important to know which one was actually the weapon used to commit this crime. For example, it will generally be necessary to show that a specific firearm was the same one found in a specific place. Further, it also may be necessary to connect that that specific firearm matches the type used in the shooting, that ballistics information for a bullet fired from that firearm matches the ballistics information from a bullet taken from the victim, and that the bullet tested is actually the bullet from the victim. Still further, it is necessary to connect that a fingerprint from the defendant was taken from that same firearm, that a bullet casing found at the scene was used by that firearm, and so on.
It should be apparent that the web of connections can grow very complicated very quickly. Further, this information is generally needed weeks or months after the shooting occurred and the gun was located. Should an incorrect connection be made somewhere in the process of getting from crime to trial, it is possible to introduce a whole slew of errors. Thus, there is a significant chance that if a mistake is made and an inaccurate connection is introduced, the entire web of connection can become flawed. If the gun taken from the scene is correctly identified as that which fired the bullet, but that gun was then inadvertently replaced with a different gun after the connection was made, a later fingerprint analysis of the “new” gun would point to the gun being used by an individual who actually has no connection with the shooting.
To try and deal with this, rigorous authentication methods have traditionally been used to make sure that evidence is gathered, stored, tested, and handled in such a way that the connections of later evidence to the original evidence are all maintained. This is commonly referred to as “chain of custody” and the idea is that definitive links through each person handling the evidence can be made which tend to show that the same piece of evidence made it through the entire evaluation process and no substitutions were made at any point. Further, if a problem is discovered, chain of custody also provides for improved likelihood of identifying where the problem occurred either to catch a purposeful tampering with evidence, to detect a faulty procedure, or even to potentially allow it to be rectified.
As should be apparent from the above, the purpose of chain of custody is to improve the chances that the same evidence is used by each of the multiple individuals that use it and assert that their results are from it. Should a bullet be inaccurately connected to the victim, it is possible that a piece of false evidence will inadvertently be used because that inaccuracy connects the wrong gun, and probably the wrong defendant to that victim. If the bullet from the shooting is mixed up with the bullet from the ballistics test of the confiscated firearm, the conclusion that the gun fired the bullet used becomes automatic as the bullets (which are actually the exact same bullet) clearly “match.” At the same time, it should be clear that the conclusion is inherently flawed (and potentially completely wrong) as the proposition became self-supporting that this was the gun used in the crime when indeed no such conclusion can be drawn with any accuracy due to the incorrect connection.
In its simplest form, chain of custody is the documentation of the movement and location of a piece of evidence from the time it is collected until it is finally presented in court. Chain of custody will generally involve a clear indication of the collection of the evidence, how it is stored, when the evidence is placed in different people's control, and how the evidence transfers between individual's control so as to identify any chance of it being tampered with, a mistake being made in its identification, or it is simply being lost.
One can best understand chain of custody by recognizing that a piece of evidence will change hands repeatedly, but the object is only a single thing. Therefore, if it is in a lab under one person's control it cannot simultaneously be elsewhere. Further, if that individual has a unique piece of evidence they will probably return that same piece of evidence. So long as the pathway of that piece of evidence can be tracked, and procedures are in place which inhibit it from getting inaccurately connected to anything else, the odds of a piece of evidence traveling through the system with accurate connections are dramatically increased.
As should be clear from the above, the chain of custody provides for a clearer indication that the same thing is always being referenced. Should the chain be broken, there is a possibility that later evidence is not correctly connected. Should this happen, evidence may be thrown out at trial or may be given reduced weight by a jury attempting to determine the quilt or innocence of the specific defendant. Still further, as a chain of custody indicates who has handled the evidence, should there become concern that evidence has been tampered with, it is possible to recreate who could have done the tampering.
Because of the problems in maintaining the chain of custody in evidence, a large number of materials have arisen to try and make sure that the chain of custody is maintained. In most instances, these materials involve highly manual practices and specialized collection containers to provide for written records of who has handled a piece of evidence. The materials also serve to contain the specific evidence within them so that the individual item is more easily kept tracked and is protected from contamination by an outside source. These systems generally provide ways to uniquely identify a piece of physical evidence. Such systems try and make sure that an individual piece of evidence can be easily and quickly identified as the unique and specific item it is. For the most part, such systems provide for containers into which evidence may be placed, labeling of containers, and identification of individuals who handled (e.g. opened) those containers.
While these systems generally work, they are manually intensive and are subject to concern as the containers can be misplaced, misrecorded, or misidentified through human error. For example, an evidence bag having a unique number allows for specific identification of the evidence bag (and its contents). However, it is possible that when an individual checks out a bag, an inaccurate identifier of the bag is entered by the human user creating a chain of custody concern. Similarly, the contents of the bag may be placed back in the wrong bag leading to inaccuracies.
Still further, while physical evidence is necessary in any investigation, crime scene photos, police officer notes, and other materials also associated with the case and necessary for investigation are not necessarily physical evidence. This information can itself become evidence depending on what occurs during the investigation. These items may have reduced chain of custody issues, but are often not connected at all with the case that they support and when they do become evidence may have increased concerns due to them having been handled differently.